The Bible is not the word of God

[DrProctopus]

A bunch of people who believed that God was talking to them wrote down what they believed God was saying.

The more relevant or successful scriptures were kept and eventually composed into the OT.

Something similar happend after Jesus did his thing, and the NT was produced.


Nowhere in this process do I see any reason to believe that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Why should I believe someone when they claim to speak for God?

So, the point of debate is this:

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

[Cephus]

Remember that 'tsunami' thing, a while back? I did that.

Sorry.

And I call dibs on the Indonesian earthquake. Granted, not my best work, but I'll claim it!

[Easyrider]

Paul’s information concerning the Eucharist or the Lord's supper was received in a vision or he made it up because he didn’t receive it from any man but Jesus himself and Jesus had clearly died before Paul met him.

1. Paul had met with the Jerusalem church early in his ministry (see the Book of Acts) and no doubt heard about the Lord's Supper from some of the Apostles.

2. Jesus was resurrected and Paul confirms he received revelations. Among those could well have been revelations about the Lord's Supper.

Either of these explanations is good enough to counter your argument that "Paul made it up."

I think it was a fellowship meal consisting of bread broken together and wine. It had nothing to do with Jesus body and blood..."

See above.

a view abhorrent to Jews.

The majority of the first Christians were Jews, so it couldn't have been too abhorrent to them, when they understood it in its proper context.

I wonder how many Christians go to the doctor and the doc says "have you been taking communion?"

Maybe we can try a little experiment. For 6 weeks you take the Lord's Supper in a mocking and condescending way and see how healthy you stay.

There are many sick dead people that partook of the Lord’s Supper in the right way or no one has done it right in the last 2000 years. This sounds pathetic, but that is Paul for you. I bet there are healthy live people that did it wrong too.

You are not privy to divine knowledge of how many may well have taken sick or died for mocking Christ's Supper, so I can't give you any credit for your beliefs on that.

[Cathar1950]

2. Jesus was resurrected and Paul confirms he received revelations. Among those could well have been revelations about the Lord's Supper.

Paul had it in a vision so your first twist doesn't work. We have no idea if they (James' Christian Assembly) took it as the blood and body there is every good reason to believe the Gospels followed Paul's story considering it is almost word for word. Remember Paul got it from Jesus after he died and not from any one else. The Gentiles didn't have any other gospels if they listened to Paul. He insisted they not listen to people that actually knew Jesus.
Ei

ther of these explanations is good enough to counter your argument that "Paul made it up."

The argument is still supported your argument fails and is just a repeat of the company line.

The majority of the first Christians were Jews, so it couldn't have been too abhorrent to them, when they understood it in its proper context.

The gentiles were the ones that understand it in Paul's context I doubt the Christians-Jews understood it that way. But it is a matter of opinion. So I am not giving it to you.

Maybe we can try a little experiment. For 6 weeks you take the Lord's Supper in a mocking and condescending way and see how healthy you stay.

What kind of stupid experiment is this? Do you have a control group?
I know if I don't shoot an arrow when there is an eclipse then the sun won't come back. Using a little fear tactic I see. It might work on some poor sap.

You are not privy to divine knowledge of how many may well have taken sick or died for mocking Christ's Supper, so I can't give you any credit for your beliefs on that.

So why would you believe such a thing? It doesn't take God's knowledge to know they have all died since.

[sue]

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

No, the bible is not 100% the word of god. Men with aspirations involving power and political success transcribed the word of god into what is now the bible.

So it's the responsibility of the reader to look for patterns and themes that repeat themselves throughout the bible. He/she should place more importance on those items than on the rule about eating shellfish, for example.

[Easyrider]

Paul had it in a vision so your first twist doesn't work. We have no idea if they (James' Christian Assembly) took it as the blood and body there is every good reason to believe the Gospels followed Paul's story considering it is almost word for word.

How you arrive at that is beyond me. Even if Paul wrote first it doesn't mean the Gospel writers followed his "story." What you have to show is that Paul never went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles, where he learned of Christ in better detail.

Remember Paul got it from Jesus after he died and not from any one else. The Gentiles didn't have any other gospels if they listened to Paul. He insisted they not listen to people that actually knew Jesus.

See above.

Explain to me how Paul, early in his ministry, never went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles? Acts chapter 9 records his first visit, and Galatians 2 confirms his 2nd visit. Also, don't forget that Paul, when he was Saul, hunted down and persecuted the early Christians, and no doubt he must have been somewhat familiar with their beliefs even at that earlier time. Paul even met with Christians at Antioch early on, so no doubt there may well have been Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, etc., there to tell him of Christ even then.

No offense, but I think your evidence for this argument is woefully lacking.

[melikio]

No, the bible is not 100% the word of god. Men with aspirations involving power and political success transcribed the word of god into what is now the bible.

So it's the responsibility of the reader to look for patterns and themes that repeat themselves throughout the bible. He/she should place more importance on those items than on the rule about eating shellfish, for example.

This is sensible.

I accept and understand well, that some people DO believe in the Bible "completely" (100%); I find that to be problematic (personally speaking), but I'm not out to push people away from that kind of "faith"; everyone in not "me".

Many "Christians" (and others) do cause problems, when they decide that their "beliefs" MUST affect or dominate the lives of others; they want to PLAY God of their own volition, too often adding misery to the lives of others. And good example is how many right-wing, fundamentalist Christians are pushing THEIR form of morality upon others, claiming the "Bible" (even God) gives them such authority or autonomy.

The realm of "faith" isn't measurable, and most people DO err in attempting to compare the essence of one person's faith to another (or to some other group's beliefs). So, I have no problem "believing" (by "faith") that certain aspects of the Bible do apply to my life both directly and indirectly, but I don't see where other people MUST embrace that same things in "faith" as I do. And while it may be more comfortable to relate to people who believe the same things, I've found that people who really know what love is (it's taught in the Bible, and other teachings), are not a major problem to get along with.

Some of the worst situations I've seen, are with the people who leave 0% room for others to believe in their own unique way/s; it's a big problem in this world.

That is the overall anatomy of likely the biggest problem which mankind has ever faced. Sure, I understand the concepts where good vs. evil, and that there is an ongoing battle. But I've seen few things as effective as religion misused or abused to crank evil up a few good notches.

-Mel-

[Easyrider]

Quote: And good example is how many right-wing, fundamentalist Christians are pushing THEIR form of morality upon others, claiming the "Bible" (even God) gives them such authority or autonomy.

I don't believe THEY wrote it. I believe God inspired it. Therefore, assuming they are being "Biblical," it isn't THEIR moral arguments, but God's.

Question for Melikio: Was Jesus a "Fundamentalist," in the sense that he had his own formal and "fundamental" beliefs? So is he then a "right-winger" because of his "fundamentalist" beliefs?

[melikio]

I don't believe THEY wrote it. I believe God inspired it. Therefore, assuming they are being "Biblical," it isn't THEIR moral arguments, but God's.

I DID NOT intend to imply that mankind could ever produce what was/is inside of the Creator's very mind. But do believe and say that HUMAN beings over time have so screwed things up (not just "interpreting" the Bible wrongly or arrogantly "imposing" it as religion), that any of these arguments are all worth taking with a BLOCK of salt. It's really hard for MANY people to "believe" anything, and we need to be open and honest about that period. We have enough people out here FRONTING and FAKING, leading to deeper problems than not believing at all.

Love (as it is conceptualized in 1Cor13) is primarily what I trust from the Bible (not a whole lot else). I do regard other things, but not as if I can pick up the Bible and read God's mind; I don't believe it in THAT way (not anymore).

Question for Melikio: Was Jesus a "Fundamentalist," in the sense that he had his own formal and "fundamental" beliefs? So is he then a "right-winger" because of his "fundamentalist" beliefs?

If Jesus was the epitome of LOVE (as many believe He was/is), then any "fundamentalist" (strict) Christian, should be exuding the same kind of things listed in 1Cor13 and Galatians 5:22 the vast majority of the time; there are no "perfect" believers however.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=51

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=51;

I think Jesus would be rejecting the POLITICS of our day, because they are generally corrupt (unfair/unjust), though most of us try to make the best of what we're dealt.

Jesus' power and knowledge (if He is real) goes far beyond "belief"; He would be someone who SAW reality ABSOLUTELY, no questions, no "beliefs" as we must surely entertain them. He would know my heart ABSOLUTELY (perfectly). And that would make ALL the difference in reality itself, when He came to speak to me (at the heart level).

I cannot prove it to you here, but far too many times have I seem so-called "Christians" being a-holes for Jesus...etc. They act like JERKS and cap it off with the hammer-like theology they've been taught to distribute so zealously. It chases people away period. I don't think Jesus (as fundamentally sound as He likely was) gave people the impression that He was anything like some of the Bible-Thumper types I've seen in my lifetime.

LOVE is the key, not demands which are too often delivered by other human beings at the end of a religious whip. YOu see, Jesus could be a PERFECT judge, and many Christians are terrible judges pretending to be far more than they really are. That is a big, BIG problem (and always has been).

Even so, a search on religious fundametalism will probably bring up a range of info that most anyone could understand overall. There are different kinds of "fundamentalists" in this world, and if I speak negatively about it, I'm usually referring to the most radical or extreme type of person (some of them will blow you to bits, to make their point for God and find Scripture to back it).

-Mel-

[joer]

McCulloch wrote:

1. assertion does not equal correction

See rest of the referred to post for correction.

And

2. that would be You're not Your

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate It.

and:

Sinners do not deserve to have bad things happen to them (other than eternal torment) but when bad things happen, it is the consequence of their mistakes and they must learn to deal with it. Fair, Just and equitabl

e.

Exactly that’s what I said using slightly different terms.


and in rffering to GOD doing bad and nasty things to man kind he wrote:

Yes he does according to the Christians' Bible.

People are interpreting it wrong. Remember this post I made on page 10 of this thread?

The Word of God has to do with an understanding of the concepts of
Inspiration,
Revelation,
Literary Genres in the Bible
The Parable
The Allegory
The Beast fable
The Short Story and Historical Novel
The Problem Story
The Speech as a Literary Device
….

Circular. If you have faith in God you will understand. If you understand then you will have faith in God.

Yeah that’s right and those who don’t have Faith in God Don’t believe in God. Circular too.

BUT the point is the faithful believe in God The unfaithful don’t. That’s not circular. That’s a statement of opposing positions.

Cephus and Lotan, you shouldn't make fun of other peoples tragedies. I'm sure most atheist wouldn't do that. It's sad what those people of the tsunami and earthquake had to suffer. I hope we all help them as much as we can.

[Aristarkos]

Question for Melikio: Was Jesus a "Fundamentalist," in the sense that he had his own formal and "fundamental" beliefs? So is he then a "right-winger" because of his "fundamentalist" beliefs?

I agree with melikio.

If Jesus was the epitome of LOVE (as many believe He was/is), then any "fundamentalist" (strict) Christian, should be exuding the same kind of things listed in 1Cor13 and Galatians 5:22 the vast majority of the time; there are no "perfect" believers however.

Today’s "Fundamentalist Christians" are known for salvation formulas and belief in the supernatural. Real fundamentalist Christians focus on love (love of self/others/God including tough-love), and what would be the most loving thing to do in a given situation. Of course, not all of life’s situations are described in the Bible. “The Word” (John1) is not the Bible. “The Word” is wisdom about love. So to be the most loving as possible, Christians should focus more on scriptures about love, and be open to the study of psychology and other resources that provide insights to loving-kindness.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. - Dr Martin Luther King Jr.